Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Marriage of Kielley v. Kielley, 674 N.W.2d 770.

37 citing documents.

Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee, Appellant, vs. Travis W. Kalis, Respondent, County of Le Sueur, Respondent Minn. 2025
Applying a –79 (Minn. App. 2004), the court of appeals first concluded that the district court did not err in determining that there was an implied-in-fact contract between the parties.
In re the Marriage of: Kevin Eric Alstrin v. Allison Lynn Alstrin, Carver County Minn. Ct. App. 2025
(“Whether a stipulation is supported by consideration is a legal question, which we review de novo.”).
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee v. Travis W. Kalis, County of Le Sueur Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Leslie E. Sheehy Lee v. Travis W. Kalis, County of Le Sueur Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Homestead Acres Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Homestead Acres Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. Minn. Ct. App. 2024
6 “Whether a stipulation is supported by consideration is a legal question, which we review de novo.”
In re the Marriage of: Matthew Beland, et al v. Heidi Beland NKA Heidi Rylander, Polk County Human … Minn. Ct. App. 2023
A district court has broad discretion regarding discovery, and “absent an abuse of that discretion, its discovery decision will not be altered on appeal.”
George Hadrich, et al v. Sylvester Geise, et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Consideration may consist of either a benefit accruing to a party or a detriment suffered by another party.” (quotation omitted).
Pamela Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, et al., vs. James Schwebel, Esq., et al Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Consideration may consist of either a benefit accruing to a party or a detriment suffered by another party.” (quotation omitted).
In re the Marriage of: Mark David Plucinski v. Ellen Marie Budzynski Minn. Ct. App. 2022
“Unreasonable and unfair” are “strong terms which place upon the claima nt a burden of proof more than cursory.” (quotation omitted).
William Gunder Reppe Jr. v. Karen Beckers Reppe Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Rupam Sinha v. Deepak Kademani Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Mary Ann Fenlon v. Steven Robert Fenlon Minn. Ct. App. 2021
“A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is against logic and facts on record.” 5 (Minn. App. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Amy Jo Yurek, n/k/a Amy Jo Sellers v. Michael Francis Yurek Minn. Ct. App. 2021
In re the Marriage of: Jill Nicole Prokop v. Christopher Jon Prokop Minn. Ct. App. 2020
“Thus, because dissolution stipulations are tr eated as contracts and because the district court must ensure that dissolu tion stipulations are fair, a di ssolution stipulation must be both contractually sound and othe rwise fair and reasonable.” Kielley v. Kielley
In re the Marriage of: Nathan Winesett v. Heather Winesett Minn. Ct. App. 2020
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Walter Eidem v. Debra Louise Eidem Minn. Ct. App. 2019
In re the Matter of: Bradley Joseph Patraw, and Ramsey County, intervenor v. Alicia Kay Wittmer Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Andrew Carufel, et al v. Minnesota Department of Public Safety, et al., Seven, Inc., d/b/a Smart Start, et … Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Consideration may consist of either a benefit accruing to a party or a detriment suffered by another party.” (quoting C & D Invs.
In re the Marriage of: Deann Kay Wells v. Joseph Daniel Wells, III Minn. Ct. App. 2018
“Unreasonable 7 and unfair are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burd en of proof more than cursory.” (quotations omitted).
In re the Custody of A. M. W. Kelly James Wadsen v. Jennifer Maggie Rosenthal Minn. Ct. App. 2018
In re the Marriage of: Kathleen Ann Gronvall v. Kalmar Gene Gronvall Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“Unreasonable and unfair are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.” (quotation omitted).
Teresa J. Bulen v. Michael E. Bulen Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Benjamin Robert Lewis v. Elle Hawkinson Frane, f/k/a Michelle Marie Lewis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Walter Stance Davis v. Regina Kay Davis Minn. Ct. App. 2017
In re the Marriage of: Michael R. Shreve v. Chantal T. Shreve Minn. Ct. App. 2017
2 (2016 ); Tuthill v. Tuthill , see also Kielley v. Kielley , (“Unreasonable and unfair are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Thomas Erle Tornstrom v. Jennifer Lynn Tornstrom, n/k/a Jennifer Lynn Klemenhagen 887 N.W.2d 680 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O’Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
In re the Marriage of: Julie Ellen O’Mara-Meyer v. William Philip Meyer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“Unreasonable and unfair are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.” (quotation omitted).
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Laura M. Engelhart, n/k/a Laura Hoss v. Robert J. Engelhart Minn. Ct. App. 2015
See, e.g., Zieman v. Zieman, 265 Minn. 190, 192, (“‘Unreasonable and unfair’ are strong terms which place upon the claimant a burden of proof more than cursory.”); (stating that a party who does not submit evidence to allow the district court to fully address a question may
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
In re the Marriage of: Heather Santilli Gamble v. John Stebbins Gamble Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
Thomas B. Olson & Associates, P.A. v. Leffert, Jay & Polglaze, P.A. 756 N.W.2d 907 Minn. Ct. App. 2008
“Consideration may consist of either a benefit accruing to a party or a detriment suffered by another party.” (quotation omitted); see also C & D Invs.